ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 15th May 2018, 07:00 PM   #3361
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How has it been explained? Phrase your issue with my logic in your words.
You might get away with pulling your shirt over your face and saying "you can't see me!" somewhere else, but it's a bad move here.

My words? you have no idea about the subject matter at hand and regurgitate some other CTist jive that you happen to agree with.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:18 PM   #3362
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
For the grown ups. there's been some new examinations of the terminal ballistics by Nicholas R. Nalli

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603

...a frontal impact at Z313 is physically ruled out. Of course, the validity of statement (34) does not rule out conjectured missed shots (although no physical evidence was ever recovered for any such shots), nor does it pinpoint the exact origin of the shot that hit (e.g., the TSBD as opposed to another nearby building). But the modeling study (and underlying dynamics and conservation laws) presented in this paper, in corroboration of the autopsy findings [25], do imply that President Kennedy was not hit by a hypothesized gunshot from the front.

The conclusion is an important one given that the hypothesized existence of a shooter in front of the limousine (viz., on the Grassy Knoll) has been the primary physical foundation for virtually all conspiracy conjectures to date on the topic.13 As a parting note, while the simple one-dimensional physical models presented in this paper were derived for application to a special case study (viz., the Kennedy Assassination), the underlying physical principles provide an approximate quantitative description of the interaction between a high-speed projectile (slowed by an intervening atmosphere) and a heterogenous body comprised of bone and visco-elastic tissue (viz., the human head), and may also form a basic conceptual basis for understanding the wounding mechanisms involved in such interactions.

ETA:

https://www.history.com/news/jfk-ass...heory-debunked

When the president was shot, he says, Kennedy’s head exploded, as the film so graphically shows. Nalli’s model shows that the wound wasn’t where the bullet exited, but where it entered. It demonstrates that a temporary cavity formed inside the president’s soft tissue as the momentum and kinetic energy of the bullet smashed into his skull, causing his head to snap forward.

Based on his model, Nalli also thinks that the theory of a second shooter and that of the president being shot by hollow-point or soft-point bullets are also unlikely. Not only were such bullets never recovered, he writes, but the movements of Kennedy’s head are only consistent with a shot from the back.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 15th May 2018 at 07:21 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:35 PM   #3363
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,885
That should be the final nail in the coffin of a frontal shot to all but the dimmest of intelligence. Where will they go next?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:42 PM   #3364
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
That should be the final nail in the coffin of a frontal shot to all but the dimmest of intelligence. Where will they go next?
Wash, rinse, repeat.

JFK could come back from the dead and proclaim there was no conspiracy and it wouldn't change the CTists pov.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:48 PM   #3365
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,956
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
That should be the final nail in the coffin of a frontal shot to all but the dimmest of intelligence.
yup... Nailed down & screwed shut!


Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Where will they go next?
Some predictions

1. They will handwave it away

2. They will ignore it, followed by a fringe reset and the umpteenth restating of the debunked Grassy Knoll shooter theory

3a. They will attack Mr Nalli as a devotee of "The Mighty Church of the Lone Nut"

3b. Failure to find any evidence of this will result in them just making something up from whole cloth
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:48 PM   #3366
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It means that not only did they peel back the scalp in order to remove the brain, but also to expose the small head wound for examination and photography.
No, that's not what incisions in the coronal plane mean.

Do look it up - you being an expert and all - and tell us where those incisions in the coronal plane were made, so as to examine the cranial contents per the autopsy report.

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

What does the above mean, Micah Java?

Or is it your plan to ignore the clear language of the autopsy report forever and just recycle your failed arguments from nine months ago?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 15th May 2018 at 08:14 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:51 PM   #3367
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How has it been explained? Phrase your issue with my logic in your words.

Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:52 PM   #3368
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,956
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How has it been explained? Phrase your issue with my logic in your words.
First, why should he?

Second, even if he should, how could he phrase his issue with your logic in his words, when your posts don't actually contain anything remotely resembling logic?
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:58 PM   #3369
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,885
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
yup... Nailed down & screwed shut!




Some predictions

1. They will handwave it away

2. They will ignore it, followed by a fringe reset and the umpteenth restating of the debunked Grassy Knoll shooter theory

3a. They will attack Mr Nalli as a devotee of "The Mighty Church of the Lone Nut"

3b. Failure to find any evidence of this will result in them just making something up from whole cloth
It's helpful to know which ones admit to being the dimmest intelligence.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 08:46 PM   #3370
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
yup... Nailed down & screwed shut!




Some predictions

1. They will handwave it away

2. They will ignore it, followed by a fringe reset and the umpteenth restating of the debunked Grassy Knoll shooter theory

3a. They will attack Mr Nalli as a devotee of "The Mighty Church of the Lone Nut"

3b. Failure to find any evidence of this will result in them just making something up from whole cloth
All of the above.

I can't even remember how many times I've posted the same videos showing the actual results of projectile impact on humans and multiple adherents of the church of Lee H (for holy) Oswald have ignored them, hand waved them away with ignorance or dug new pits of ignorance attempting to explain why bullets can't knock someone down unless they're politicians in a Lincoln in Texas.

There is no truth in them.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 10:07 PM   #3371
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,753
Right now I'm reading Robert Baer's The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins and it's fascinating. The book centers on his time in Lebanon as a CIA officer, and the hunt for Hajj Radwan, Hezbollah's master strategist and assassin. The book also covers Laos, Spain, and other historic assassination plots.

I'm only a few chapters in but it is obvious why Baer sees Cuba behind Oswald. I think he's just paranoid, but its a paranoia based on history.

What is most interesting is the discussion of assassination from a practical view point of the people tasked with planning and execution. I've never seen a discussion of the mechanics involved to pull an assassination off written so cold and clear-headed. The book gives the reader a glimpse into a CIA operation to kill Radwan, and compares and contrasts it with other assassinations in history.

Baer is an admitted JFK Assassination CTist from well before he joined the CIA, and it colors his perceptions of Oswald. The problem is that Dallas doesn't look anything like the successful operations he describes in his book. Oswald certainly would never be the guy you'd put all of your chips on.

As for multiple gunmen? Hell no.

Dealey Plaza is a lousy place to put a bunch of guys with rifles, especially when the target is part of a parade where hundreds of eye-witnesses will be on ALL of the sidewalks. The county courthouse is there meaning extra police at all hours, and because JFK was a huge draw the traffic was going to be a nightmare making escape problematic.

Any idiot can see this.

The only thing that makes sense is Oswald. Oswald had the parade route handed to him, and he had the best seat in the house to make the shots. Elm Street acted as a kill-funnel; the limo rode the center yellow line, and combined with perspective from the 6th floor window wherein the the street acted as an automatic aiming system for him to line up each shot. This is evident in that each shot was more accurate the FARTHER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING the got from the building.

I like to say that Oswald got lucky, and mostly he did, but combined with his USMC training he was handed a perfect place to make history.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 12:28 AM   #3372
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Right now I'm reading Robert Baer's The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins and it's fascinating. The book centers on his time in Lebanon as a CIA officer, and the hunt for Hajj Radwan, Hezbollah's master strategist and assassin. The book also covers Laos, Spain, and other historic assassination plots.

I'm only a few chapters in but it is obvious why Baer sees Cuba behind Oswald. I think he's just paranoid, but its a paranoia based on history.

What is most interesting is the discussion of assassination from a practical view point of the people tasked with planning and execution. I've never seen a discussion of the mechanics involved to pull an assassination off written so cold and clear-headed. The book gives the reader a glimpse into a CIA operation to kill Radwan, and compares and contrasts it with other assassinations in history.

Baer is an admitted JFK Assassination CTist from well before he joined the CIA, and it colors his perceptions of Oswald. The problem is that Dallas doesn't look anything like the successful operations he describes in his book. Oswald certainly would never be the guy you'd put all of your chips on.

As for multiple gunmen? Hell no.

Dealey Plaza is a lousy place to put a bunch of guys with rifles, especially when the target is part of a parade where hundreds of eye-witnesses will be on ALL of the sidewalks. The county courthouse is there meaning extra police at all hours, and because JFK was a huge draw the traffic was going to be a nightmare making escape problematic.

Any idiot can see this.

The only thing that makes sense is Oswald. Oswald had the parade route handed to him, and he had the best seat in the house to make the shots. Elm Street acted as a kill-funnel; the limo rode the center yellow line, and combined with perspective from the 6th floor window wherein the the street acted as an automatic aiming system for him to line up each shot. This is evident in that each shot was more accurate the FARTHER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING the got from the building.

I like to say that Oswald got lucky, and mostly he did, but combined with his USMC training he was handed a perfect place to make history.
And the sad fact that I believe is behind the assassination is that LHO was a little man with a firearm, and that was his only tool to get into the history books.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 01:13 AM   #3373
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,956
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Right now I'm reading Robert Baer's The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins and it's fascinating. The book centers on his time in Lebanon as a CIA officer, and the hunt for Hajj Radwan, Hezbollah's master strategist and assassin. The book also covers Laos, Spain, and other historic assassination plots.

I'm only a few chapters in but it is obvious why Baer sees Cuba behind Oswald. I think he's just paranoid, but its a paranoia based on history.

What is most interesting is the discussion of assassination from a practical view point of the people tasked with planning and execution. I've never seen a discussion of the mechanics involved to pull an assassination off written so cold and clear-headed. The book gives the reader a glimpse into a CIA operation to kill Radwan, and compares and contrasts it with other assassinations in history.

Baer is an admitted JFK Assassination CTist from well before he joined the CIA, and it colors his perceptions of Oswald. The problem is that Dallas doesn't look anything like the successful operations he describes in his book. Oswald certainly would never be the guy you'd put all of your chips on.

As for multiple gunmen? Hell no.

Dealey Plaza is a lousy place to put a bunch of guys with rifles, especially when the target is part of a parade where hundreds of eye-witnesses will be on ALL of the sidewalks. The county courthouse is there meaning extra police at all hours, and because JFK was a huge draw the traffic was going to be a nightmare making escape problematic.

Any idiot can see this.

The only thing that makes sense is Oswald. Oswald had the parade route handed to him, and he had the best seat in the house to make the shots. Elm Street acted as a kill-funnel; the limo rode the center yellow line, and combined with perspective from the 6th floor window wherein the the street acted as an automatic aiming system for him to line up each shot. This is evident in that each shot was more accurate the FARTHER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING the got from the building.

I like to say that Oswald got lucky, and mostly he did, but combined with his USMC training he was handed a perfect place to make history.
A couple of things about this as it relates to the JFK conspiracy.

First off, there doesn't have to be a full on military style operation with multiple shooters and support personnel to carry out an assassination; RFK, MLK Jr, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan (attempt) and Archduke Ferdinand of Austria all tell us this.

There also does not have to be a truckload of support personnel in order to make a conspiracy. In United States law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. If LHO discussed with one other person his plan to try to kill JFK, and that person agreed to it, then that is a conspiracy. Even more so if that person arranged to help in any way, e.g. planning, helping to plan, or assisting in providing a means of escape.

For mine, that corner window of the sixth floor was the perfect place for the sniper's nest.

- LHO knew the route the motorcade would take. It was published in both the Dallas Morning News and the Times-Herald on November 19th, including the turn onto Elm St, and was therefore available at least 72 hours before LHO was due to arrive at work on the Friday morning. Three days is a lifetime in planning to do what was essentially no more than shooting out of a window at slowly moving car.

- The sixth floor was essentially empty, only being used for storage so it was isolated... his chances of being caught in the attempt were minimal

- A lower floor might have meant increased chance of the shots being obstructed by trees

- Elm Street slopes down from the corner of Houston towards the triple underpass, minimizing the amount of vertical altitude change in the moving target.

- Left to right tracking of the target was minimal, and getting to almost zero as the presidential limo passed the apex of the slight left hand curve in Elm.

- Escape was as simple going down five flights of stairs. Others in the building would be doing the same thing to see what had happened so it was the perfect cover - he would not have appeared to be doing anything out of the ordinary.

One of the things that, at least to me, makes Bob Baer more palatable than other conspiracy theorists, is that he does not, to me at least, appear to ignore or handwave away evidence. With his CIA experience, he fully understands that ALL of the physical, forensic, medical and documentary evidence support only one conclusion; that LHO was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza, and that he acted alone in the actual shooting of JFK. While watching Tracking Oswald, I noticed that time and again, if something didn't seem to work, he would drop that line of reasoning rather than indulging in the standard CT practice we see manifesto and micahjava exhibiting here on a regular basis; twisting and contorting the evidence to make it fit their theory.

I also think he might possibly be onto something with the Cuban connection. Both sides in Cuba had the motive to go after JFK; Castro's Government side because of the 13 days of the missile crisis, and the Cuban anti-Castro group Alpha66 because of the perceived betrayal at the Bay of Pigs.

Police have a saying when they deal with crimes, that there are three basic elements required before you can argue that a person has committed a crime... means, motive and opportunity. Oswald had all three in spades

Means: The Mannlicher-Carcano
Motive: He hated JFK and had previously talked about killing him
Opportunity: He worked in the very building with the snipers nest

Also, both Oswald and the Cuban rebels had all three with regard to a conspiracy. However, this is just conjecture on my part, nothing is proven. There are hints and suspicions, but IMO, they fall short of hard evidence. If the Cubans and Oswald really did conspire to kill JFK, we will probably never know one way or the other.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 16th May 2018 at 01:16 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 03:28 AM   #3374
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,227
Wink

Deleted
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Wolrab; 16th May 2018 at 03:32 AM.
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 03:31 AM   #3375
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,227
Wink

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
It's helpful to know which ones admit to being the dimmest intelligence.Thank you.
FTFY
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Wolrab; 16th May 2018 at 03:32 AM.
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 04:08 AM   #3376
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How has it been explained? Phrase your issue with my logic in your words.
You have no logic only logical fallacies.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 04:13 AM   #3377
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
That should be the final nail in the coffin of a frontal shot to all but the dimmest of intelligence. Where will they go next?
You would think so, but as most of us know the CT's don't use science to defend their assertions, just ranting and raving, hoping to score a point. This assures the discussion of longevity rather than substance and solution.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 07:31 AM   #3378
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You would think so, but as most of us know the CT's don't use science to defend their assertions, just ranting and raving, hoping to score a point. This assures the discussion of longevity rather than substance and solution.

Case in point: Watch Micah Java change the subject to something one of the autopsists said they recalled 33 years after the fact and ignore this sentence from the autopsy report (which he insists is correct) once more:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 16th May 2018 at 07:33 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:18 AM   #3379
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Case in point: Watch Micah Java change the subject to something one of the autopsists said they recalled 33 years after the fact and ignore this sentence from the autopsy report (which he insists is correct) once more:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Hank
Whatever you think it means, that's probably not it means.

Again, not only did they peel back the scalp in order to remove the brain, but also to expose the small head wound for examination and photography. Statements by the autopsy pathologists indicate that a separate, incision was made low in the scalp to expose the small head wound.

From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.


3/11/1978 HSCA interview of Humes and Boswell:


Dr. PETTY: What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I can’t read it-but up close
to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL: It’s the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. Perry: That’s the posterior-inferior margin of the-lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that
back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire, I
guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES: To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the
smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of
which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right
on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.



From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.

Last edited by MicahJava; 16th May 2018 at 09:52 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:09 AM   #3380
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Whatever you think it means, that's probably not it means.

From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:
1st bolded is insightful self criticism.

2nd bolded - Clay Shaw was acquitted. the jury didn't buy any of Garrisons ******** and testimony from a failed prosecution doesn't even move slowly towards proof of conspiracy - proof of the fallibility of human memory and recollection? yes.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 12:20 PM   #3381
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,753
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A couple of things about this as it relates to the JFK conspiracy.

First off, there doesn't have to be a full on military style operation with multiple shooters and support personnel to carry out an assassination; RFK, MLK Jr, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan (attempt) and Archduke Ferdinand of Austria all tell us this.
I agree with everything you wrote.

For me it boils down to the what I call the First Law of Conspiracy:

Before you can rule in a conspiracy you have to successfully rule out the accused actors in the event.

And nobody can rule Oswald out as the lone shooter, at least not those who are intellectually honest.

His gun with his finger-prints from his place of employment. He flees, kills Tippit, almost kills a second officer.

During his interrogation at DPD he says a couple of times: "Everyone will know my name".

Everything else involved with this CT is either unsubstantiated eye-witness testimony, testimony taken out of context, or unadulterated lies.

This CT was allowed to fester in a vacuum between 1965 onward. In the 60's there was no 24-hour cable news, no internet, and the public didn't have access regular viewing of the Zapruder Film or the other films. This allowed speculation to become dogma. In the case of the Zapruder Film most believers in the CT had 11 years of being told what it showed, and were told that the images had been altered. Today anyone viewing the film knows this is not true.

Throw in the social turmoil of the Vietnam War, and the counter-culture where the JFK CT thrived, and the story goes from a communist wannabe killing JKF to a conspiracy by dark forces to drive the US into Vietnam by killing the one man who would have stopped it.

History is not clear about what JFK would have done in Vietnam. History is clear about his attitude against communism as witnessed by Operation Mongoose, and its larger sister operation against Cuba. The man loved black-ops and commandos. No one can say what JFK's future held had he lived for that second term.

Anyway, in my view a conspiracy involving Oswald is one where he is the initiator of the assassination with hopes to defect to Cuba to live out his life as a hero of the Marxist Revolution. Maybe he made contact with Cuban operatives in Dallas, contacts given to him at this mysterious party in Mexico City. Maybe he pitches the plan citing his April 10th assassination attempt on General Walker is his credentials. I'm sure the Cubans would have been skeptical, and would have taken the Seinfeld-esque attitude of "Good luck with that". If he kills Kennedy, great, and if he doesn't, that's cool too. I don't see more than 5 people knowing what Oswald was up to in November, 1963.

I sure as hell don't see any professional direction given to Oswald.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 12:50 PM   #3382
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Whatever you think it means, that's probably not it means.

Again, not only did they peel back the scalp in order to remove the brain, but also to expose the small head wound for examination and photography. Statements by the autopsy pathologists indicate that a separate, incision was made low in the scalp to expose the small head wound.

From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.


3/11/1978 HSCA interview of Humes and Boswell:


Dr. PETTY: What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I canít read it-but up close
to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL: Itís the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. Perry: Thatís the posterior-inferior margin of the-lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that
back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire, I
guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES: To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the
smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of
which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right
on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.



From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.
Tell me how this testimony compares to the comments made just after the autopsy and the WC?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 12:54 PM   #3383
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I agree with everything you wrote.

For me it boils down to the what I call the First Law of Conspiracy:

Before you can rule in a conspiracy you have to successfully rule out the accused actors in the event.

And nobody can rule Oswald out as the lone shooter, at least not those who are intellectually honest.

His gun with his finger-prints from his place of employment. He flees, kills Tippit, almost kills a second officer.

During his interrogation at DPD he says a couple of times: "Everyone will know my name".

Everything else involved with this CT is either unsubstantiated eye-witness testimony, testimony taken out of context, or unadulterated lies.

This CT was allowed to fester in a vacuum between 1965 onward. In the 60's there was no 24-hour cable news, no internet, and the public didn't have access regular viewing of the Zapruder Film or the other films. This allowed speculation to become dogma. In the case of the Zapruder Film most believers in the CT had 11 years of being told what it showed, and were told that the images had been altered. Today anyone viewing the film knows this is not true.

Throw in the social turmoil of the Vietnam War, and the counter-culture where the JFK CT thrived, and the story goes from a communist wannabe killing JKF to a conspiracy by dark forces to drive the US into Vietnam by killing the one man who would have stopped it.

History is not clear about what JFK would have done in Vietnam. History is clear about his attitude against communism as witnessed by Operation Mongoose, and its larger sister operation against Cuba. The man loved black-ops and commandos. No one can say what JFK's future held had he lived for that second term.

Anyway, in my view a conspiracy involving Oswald is one where he is the initiator of the assassination with hopes to defect to Cuba to live out his life as a hero of the Marxist Revolution. Maybe he made contact with Cuban operatives in Dallas, contacts given to him at this mysterious party in Mexico City. Maybe he pitches the plan citing his April 10th assassination attempt on General Walker is his credentials. I'm sure the Cubans would have been skeptical, and would have taken the Seinfeld-esque attitude of "Good luck with that". If he kills Kennedy, great, and if he doesn't, that's cool too. I don't see more than 5 people knowing what Oswald was up to in November, 1963.

I sure as hell don't see any professional direction given to Oswald.
That is absolutely true:

http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith...rategy-vietnam

Conclusion

John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision.10 The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified. These decisions were taken, and even placed, in an oblique and carefully limited way, before the public.

But there's also this straight from the mouth of RFK:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

Kennedy:


Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

Martin:

It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . .
.

Kennedy:

Yes.

Martin:

. . . and couldn't lose it.


Kennedy:

Yes.

Martin:

And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy:


Well, we'd face that when we came to it.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 01:17 PM   #3384
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,956
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.


3/11/1978 HSCA interview of Humes and Boswell:


Dr. PETTY: What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I canít read it-but up close
to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL: Itís the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. Perry: Thatís the posterior-inferior margin of the-lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that
back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire, I
guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES: To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the
smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of
which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right
on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.



From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.
I don't know what you hope to glean from this testimony.

Does this testimony indicate in any way that JFK was hit from any direction other than behind the motorcade? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that there were one or more extra shooters to the right of the motorcade (e.g. near or on the grassy knoll)? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that any proposed extra shooters had silencers on their weapons. No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that the autopsy or the associated photos and/or x-rays were amended, altered or faked? No, it does not!

Does this testimony in any way prove there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. No, it does not!

Do not try to attribute to orchestration, machinations or conspiracy, that which is more readily explained by human error. Doing so is not the path to truth.

IMO, you are merely throwing bucket-loads of crap against the wall in the minute hope that some of it will stick. You have been desperate to clutch onto anything, anything to try to keep your conspiracy alive.... and you have failed miserably.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 01:21 PM   #3385
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It means that not only did they peel back the scalp in order to remove the brain, but also to expose the small head wound for examination and photography.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
No, that's not what incisions in the coronal plane mean.

Do look it up - you being an expert and all - and tell us where those incisions in the coronal plane were made, so as to examine the cranial contents per the autopsy report.

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

What does the above mean, Micah Java?

Or is it your plan to ignore the clear language of the autopsy report forever and just recycle your failed arguments from nine months ago?

Hank
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Case in point: Watch Micah Java change the subject to something one of the autopsists said they recalled 33 years after the fact and ignore this sentence from the autopsy report (which he insists is correct) once more:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Hank
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Whatever you think it means, that's probably not [what] it means.

[Red Herring Logical Fallacy deleted]

I didn't ask what you thought I thought it meant. I asked you to tell us what it meant to you.

You are still dodging the questions and repeating recollections from years and decades after the fact.

Exactly as I said you would do. In other words, this is another fringe reset for you.

When do you intend to actually confront what the autopsy report says:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Tell us what that means, Micah Java. You're the expert on all things JFK autopsy, right?


Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 16th May 2018 at 03:03 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 02:17 PM   #3386
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,885
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Whatever you think it means, that's probably not it means.
Answer the question, what do you think it means? In your own words.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 03:05 PM   #3387
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Interesting premise for this short film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdfE...ature=youtu.be

JFK and Nixon in 1952. I will say no more.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 03:12 PM   #3388
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Interesting premise for this short film (19 minutes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdfE...ature=youtu.be

JFK and Nixon in 1952. I will say no more.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 16th May 2018 at 03:14 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 04:10 PM   #3389
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,753
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I don't know what you hope to glean from this testimony.

Does this testimony indicate in any way that JFK was hit from any direction other than behind the motorcade? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that there were one or more extra shooters to the right of the motorcade (e.g. near or on the grassy knoll)? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that any proposed extra shooters had silencers on their weapons. No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that the autopsy or the associated photos and/or x-rays were amended, altered or faked? No, it does not!

Does this testimony in any way prove there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. No, it does not!

Do not try to attribute to orchestration, machinations or conspiracy, that which is more readily explained by human error. Doing so is not the path to truth.

IMO, you are merely throwing bucket-loads of crap against the wall in the minute hope that some of it will stick. You have been desperate to clutch onto anything, anything to try to keep your conspiracy alive.... and you have failed miserably.
His claim stems from his inability to understand medical testimony, and is based on the misconception that the brain was removed intact through the hole blasted out by Oswald - and that is not true.

We have posted links multiple times to Hume's testimony on this subject (Fink was not there at the time the skull was cut open). He testifies that the skull-cap was removed per the usual method (bone saw) with particular care taken around the damaged regions of the head.

MJ is stumped for some reason because Fink said he saw the entry hole in the back of the skull, meaning that that part of the skull was left intact by Humes when HE CUT AROUND A KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. MJ continues to insist that the brain was removed through the 5-inch hole made by the Carcano round.

All this while at the same time posting autopsy photos that show JFK's skull cap had been sawed off.

Somehow he's getting a second bullet strike to the back of the head out of this misinterpretation.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:08 PM   #3390
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
His claim stems from his inability to understand medical testimony, and is based on the misconception that the brain was removed intact through the hole blasted out by Oswald - and that is not true.

We have posted links multiple times to Hume's testimony on this subject (Fink was not there at the time the skull was cut open). He testifies that the skull-cap was removed per the usual method (bone saw) with particular care taken around the damaged regions of the head.

MJ is stumped for some reason because Fink said he saw the entry hole in the back of the skull, meaning that that part of the skull was left intact by Humes when HE CUT AROUND A KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. MJ continues to insist that the brain was removed through the 5-inch hole made by the Carcano round.

All this while at the same time posting autopsy photos that show JFK's skull cap had been sawed off.

Somehow he's getting a second bullet strike to the back of the head out of this misinterpretation.
Axxman, there is simply no way you can't comprehend this topic at this point, two years on this thread and I already know a lot of important stuff by heart. So there is no way you still don't understand the brain removal problem.

Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to? Ones you made up or ones you misunderstood?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:12 PM   #3391
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Axxman, there is simply no way you can't comprehend this topic at this point, two years on this thread and I already know a lot of important stuff by heart. So there is no way you still don't understand the brain removal problem.

Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to? Ones you made up or ones you misunderstood?
You only believe what you want to believe.

That in no way constitutes knowledge.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:06 PM   #3392
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,208
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Interesting premise for this short film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdfE...ature=youtu.be

JFK and Nixon in 1952. I will say no more.

Hank
Good find.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:57 PM   #3393
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,753
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Axxman, there is simply no way you can't comprehend this topic at this point, two years on this thread and I already know a lot of important stuff by heart. So there is no way you still don't understand the brain removal problem.

Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to? Ones you made up or ones you misunderstood?
What am I missing?

Humes said he cut the skull cap off, using extreme care to work around the shattered right-rear section of the the head to preserve the damaged section. That's over 80% of the clearance he needed to remove the brain since the right half was shredded.

YOU have posted two photos where the cut skull bone at the forehead is clearly visible.

There was no brain removal problem. This is your fabrication hoping to add to the circus sideshow that is JFK-CT Land.

How about you join the CT big league instead? You can't remove Oswald as the assassin, and you can't add a second gunman; the evidence does not support this. Why not give us a Cuban covert, direct-action cell that had links to Oswald instead? Or if ratting out fellow leftists bothers you, then link him to a CIA Mongoose team. Give us something that will make us work for once. This EOP junk is kiddie-pool level claptrap.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:03 PM   #3394
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
What am I missing?

Humes said he cut the skull cap off, using extreme care to work around the shattered right-rear section of the the head to preserve the damaged section. That's over 80% of the clearance he needed to remove the brain since the right half was shredded.

YOU have posted two photos where the cut skull bone at the forehead is clearly visible.

There was no brain removal problem. This is your fabrication hoping to add to the circus sideshow that is JFK-CT Land.

How about you join the CT big league instead? You can't remove Oswald as the assassin, and you can't add a second gunman; the evidence does not support this. Why not give us a Cuban covert, direct-action cell that had links to Oswald instead? Or if ratting out fellow leftists bothers you, then link him to a CIA Mongoose team. Give us something that will make us work for once. This EOP junk is kiddie-pool level claptrap.
Axxman, which interview with the autopsy pathologists?

Also, you cannot properly remove a brain without separating some of the occipital bone.

Also, you never provided proof that the boh photographs show an empty cranium, let alone provided a reason for why that is even relevant.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:41 PM   #3395
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,956
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Also, you cannot properly remove a brain without separating some of the occipital bone.
That is just complete and utter rubbish. You really have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

Here is a photographic record of the actual removal of a human brain from a cadaver. The brain is finally removed by lifting the forebrain up and pulling it forward to remove the occipital lobe leaving the occipital bone completely intact

Warning: Graphic images
https://www.documentingreality.com/f...-brain-134832/

You continue to make a fool of yourself by shooting yourself in the foot - you post statements together with supporting photos that actually refute your statements. Duh!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 12:21 AM   #3396
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,753
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Axxman, which interview with the autopsy pathologists?
I've posted it at least three times, and so has Hank. Your laziness is your undoing. Go find it, or just look up Humes' final deposition for the archivists at Mary Ferrell, and read the whole thing like a grownup would. Facts are not found in soundbites, you have to dig, and do home work.

Quote:
Also, you cannot properly remove a brain without separating some of the occipital bone.
Nope, again, do your homework.

Quote:
Also, you never provided proof that the boh photographs show an empty cranium, let alone provided a reason for why that is even relevant.
Proof? If you can't just look at the pictures YOU POSTED then you can use logic because why would they cut open the skull, and not remove the brain? YOU POSTED FINCK'S TESTIMONIES where he said the brain was already out of the skull by the time he got to the room, and that means the pictures were taken AFTER THE BRAIN WAS OUT.

You're chasing a parked car.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 07:18 AM   #3397
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to?
How about this one? Can you explain what it means?

When do you intend to actually confront what the autopsy report says:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Tell us what that means, Micah Java. You're the expert on all things JFK autopsy, right?

Everyone can see you're avoiding this like the plague.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 10:11 AM   #3398
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,753
Meanwhile, in grownup JFK Assassination Land, here's a Newsweek story about how the recent CIA assassination document release outed a still-living CIA asset: Richard Gibson. Gibson was a journalist whom Oswald had contacted at some point, and Gibson was working for the CIA having co-founded something called THE FAIR PLAY for CUBA COMMITTEE.

Check the story out if you like honest history:

http://www.newsweek.com/richard-gibs...ht-cuba-926428

Unlike the CT versions of CIA activities, this article provides a good look at who the agency will hire or partner with to gather intelligence. Not black and white at all.

If you like real spy stuff this one's worth your time.

Also from last month's Newsweek:

Quote:
a new analysis of the Zapruder footage conducted by Nicholas Nalli from I.M. Systems Group shows that JFK’s reactions after being shot are physically consistent with the results of the official autopsy findings: that he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head, fired from a high-energy Carcano rifle (the one used by Oswald) located in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository.
Link to Newsweek here:

http://www.newsweek.com/jfk-assassin...t-study-902292

Link to I.M. Systems Group study here:

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603/

It buries the "Back and to the Left" nonsense forever.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 17th May 2018 at 10:25 AM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 11:44 AM   #3399
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That is just complete and utter rubbish. You really have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

Here is a photographic record of the actual removal of a human brain from a cadaver. The brain is finally removed by lifting the forebrain up and pulling it forward to remove the occipital lobe leaving the occipital bone completely intact

Warning: Graphic images
https://www.documentingreality.com/f...-brain-134832/

You continue to make a fool of yourself by shooting yourself in the foot - you post statements together with supporting photos that actually refute your statements. Duh!
Smartcooky, I should not have said it's impossible to remove a brain without separating the occipital bone, you can if you're doing it on an undamaged skull in a typical case. And I bet that it would even be possible to leave a little bit of the right side of the parietal bone, 4-5 inches above the EOP

But...

Where do you think the skull photographs come into play? Whether a frontal or posterior view, they show the left side of the skull intact. So you can not rely on an open left side of the skull to get your fingers under the lobes of the skull to lift it very far. No open space on the left side of the skull also means that autopsists most likely could not have maneuvered under the brain like in your example.

Bonus: As I've said a thousand times, 4-5 inches above the EOP is too close to the large "exit" defect to not have that area of the parietal bone shattered like the rest of that area of skull. Humes and Boswell always said that the skull was so shattered they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a cavity large enough to remove the brain. The skull photographs corroborate this, jagged spiked edges instead of straight saw cuts. Their statements also always indicated that the skull cavity only involved the top-right and occipital sides.

I cannot use my right hand right now, but eventually I can respond with more.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 12:08 PM   #3400
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,885
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I cannot use my right hand right now, but eventually I can respond with more.
So where did the shot come from?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.